Investment Property Mortgage Loan Applications That Succeed

Your commercial property loan is turned down – Why?? It is particularly tough to get an investment property mortgage loan, and you will often find yourself rejected for no clear reason. This can be frustrating, but it is a learning experience. With each terrible rejection, you get a little wiser.

Well, what if you could skip all of those rejections and learn from others’ mistakes? Let’s look at the most common reasons why investment property mortgage loans get turned down. Then, you will know what to expect when you apply for your financing.

The Type of Business

The most common reason that loan applications are rejected is that the bank simply does not offer financing to certain kinds of businesses. Banks loan money on the basis of possible risk, and some business types are considered riskier than others. If you are trying to get financing for a golf course, restaurant, gas station or church, you might find it tricky to get funding. On the other hand, if you are looking for funding for an apartment complex or office building, it will be much easier.

What is your solution? Look for a lender that specializes in that particular type of business. On the Internet, there are all sorts of financing company options available. Also, look for non-traditional lenders who may be more likely to take on what they consider riskier ventures.

Don’t Ask For Too Much!

A big problem that causes many rejections is that borrowers simply ask for too much money. A bank is always ready to approve a smaller loan before it approves a bigger one, especially with the sub prime catastrophe that we’re seeing today. A bad loan for lots of money is not good for the lender or the borrower.

When you are working out your business plan, be realistic about how much you need, and how much you are able to pay back. It’s nice to have more than enough money to start your business, but it’s not so nice when you are struggling to pay the bills and have that giant debt hanging over your head. Ask for just as much as you need, and don’t aim too high.

The Source of Funding

Most traditional lenders will want to know detailed information about where the funds are coming from to make the down-payment. This is a reasonable request, but it can get those of us seeking a loan into trouble. The reason why this can be problematic is that they may consider the source a high risk. Remember, they’re not as optimistic about your business as you are!

Many businesses finance their down payment by using funds from what is called “subordinated debt.” This basically means some kind of secondary financing, like a seller second. Banks and other traditional lenders don’t like to see this. A non-traditional lender will be much more likely to approve a loan that uses secondary financing as a down payment.

Finally, remember that we all get rejected! Probably everyone you know who has started a small business has been turned down at least once, and most likely many more times than that.

Supply Chain Finance & Reverse Factoring

Supply Chain Finance can also be known as Supplier Finance or Reverse Factoring. The term “supply chain” in this context is used to refer to the network of organisations and activities involved with producing, distributing and paying for goods and services provided by one or more suppliers to a single customer. For example a large company being supplied by numerous smaller businesses. “Supply Chain Finance” refers to the provision of finance to a number of supplier businesses, within a single supply chain, under one umbrella arrangement that has been initially set up by the customer at the top of the supply chain.

An example of Supply Chain Finance would be where a supermarket is purchasing products from a wide range of smaller suppliers. The supermarket will arrange a Supply Chain Financing agreement with a financier such that all of their suppliers have the option of accessing finance under the umbrella arrangement. This is often provided at competitive rates that reflect the size of the supermarkets business rather than the size of the individual supplier businesses. In this way, the suppliers benefit from the arrangement as they are able to access finance at much lower rates than they would typically be able to achieve in their own right.

Some arrangements may be as simple as funding the outstanding sales invoice to the supermarket or similar large business, but in some cases there may be other services bolted onto the arrangement to help improve the management of the entire supply process.

The Benefits of Supply Chain Finance
The benefits of Supply Chain Finance to the large business arranging it in respect of their suppliers is that they are able to enjoy credit periods from their suppliers. These are being funded at competitive rates that their individual suppliers may not have been able to achieve in their own right. This will encourage their suppliers to continue to provide that level of credit when they may not otherwise have been able to afford it.

The key benefit from the perspective of the suppliers within the arrangement is that they are able to access finance at rates that would normally be reserved for businesses that are much larger, for example, national or global supermarket chains.

In recent times we have seen a few examples of this type of arrangement being established by some major companies and these types of arrangements can be provided by a number of funders that also provide more traditional invoice finance and factoring facilities.

Alternative to Supply Chain Factoring & Reverse Factoring
However, a Supply Chain Finance or Reverse Factoring arrangement may not always be the right answer for a particular supplier as there can often be other issues that cause a supplier to seek a facility that is independent of their customer. An example might be not wishing their financing to be connected to their customer. The take up of a Supply Chain Finance arrangement may not be unanimous amongst the suppliers to a particular business and each situation needs to be reviewed on its own merits and compared with other options available independently within the market.

The Future
Although Supply Chain Finance appears to have taken off relatively slowly within the UK so far there are examples of new arrangements emerging and the product is likely to feature increasingly within the Invoice Finance market.

Why A Business Asset Based Loan Financing Is The Perfect Solution For Cash Flow In Canada

You are a Canadian business owner and financial manager looking for info and guidance on a business asset based loan. What is asset based loan financing, sometimes called cash flow factoring – how does it work, and why could it be the best solution for your firm’s working capital challenges.

Let’s cover off the basics and find out how you can benefit form this relatively speaking new form of asset financing in Canada.

A good start is to always understand and cover off some basics around what this type of financing is. Simply speaking the facility is a loan arrangement that is drawn down and repaid regularly based on your receivables, inventory, and, if required, equipment and real estate should your firm possess those assets also.

By collateralizing your assets you in effect create an ongoing borrowing base for all your assets – this feasibility then fluctuate on a daily basis based on invoices you generate, inventory you move, and cash you collect from customers. When you need more working capital you simply draw down on initial funds as covered under your asset base.

Your probably can already see the advantage, which is simply that if you have assets you have cash. Your receivables and inventory, as they grow, in effect provide you with unlimited financing.

Unlike a Canadian chartered bank financing your business asset based loan financing in effect has no cap. The alternative facility for this type of working capital financing is of course a Canadian chartered bank line of credit – that facility always comes with a cap and stringent requirements re your balance sheet and income statement quality and ratios, as well as performance covenants and personal guarantees and outside collateral. So there is a big difference in the non bank financing we have table for your consideration.

Your asset based lender works with you to manage the facility – and you are required to regularly report on your levels of A/R and inventory, which are the prime underpinnings of the financing.

Smaller firms use a particular subset of this financing, often called factoring or cash flow factoring. This specific type of financing is less transparent to your customers, as the cash flow factor might insist on verifying your invoices with customers, etc. A true asset based loan financing is usually transparent to your customers, which is the way you want it to be – You bill and collect our own invoices.

If our facility provides you with unlimited working capital then why have you potentially not heard of it and why aren’t your competitors using it. Our clients always can be forgiven for asking that question. The reality is that in the U.S. this type of financing is a multi billion dollar industry, it has gained traction in Canada, even more so after the financial meltdown of 2008. Some of Canada’s largest corporations use the financing. And if your firm has working capital assets anywhere from 250k and up you are a candidate. Larger facilities are of course in the many millions of dollars.

The Canadian asset based financing market is very fragmented and has a combo of U.S., international and Canadian asset finance lenders. They have varying appetites for deal size, how the facility works on a daily basis, and pricing, which can be competitive to banks or significantly higher.

Speak to a trusted, credible and experienced business financing advisor and determine if the advantages of business asset based loan financing work for your firm. They have the potential of accelerating cash flow, giving you cash all the time when you need it ( assuming you have assets ) and essentially liquefying and monetizing your current assets to provide constant cash flow, and that’s what its all about.

Why Is Public Finance Management So Important To Development?

In response to the Paris Declaration (2005) and the Accra Agenda (2008) leading to commitments for donors to channel more of their aid to developing countries through country systems, there has been a growing shift away from program and project aid – typically managed or overseen directly by the contributing development partner – to budget support where aid is channeled directly through the developing country treasury’s consolidated revenue fund account. As one might expect, as a consequence of this growing shift to budget support there has been a corresponding increase in donor focus on the performance of Public Finance Management in the countries that receive budget support. This is as should be, given the increased real or perceived fiduciary risks associated with the use of country systems to manage the hard earned taxes of the citizens of development partner countries.

But this is only one side of the story. Unfortunately there is not yet that much interest or appreciation in the other side of the story. On the other side of the story are the citizens of the developing countries who may suffer as a consequence of tinkering with Public Finance Management systems in the name of reform, which may only serve to undermine current weak systems and set them back even further. Public Finance Management seems inaccessible to most of us. Even where it is accessible to us we deem it to be boring, inconsequential and something only dreary accountants and auditors need bother about. But think, Public Finance Management is about our money, it is about our children’s future, it is about our development.
The importance of Public Finance Management and its reform derives as a consequence of its direct role in implementing policy – be it about improving education, achieving better health care, promoting tourism, or increasing agricultural yields. With weak Public Finance Management systems, even where policy makers come up with sound policy, it may not be possible to implement such policy effectively. Further, quite uniquely Public Finance Management performance affects the performance of all other sectors – yes the macroeconomic environment and so private sector opportunity and the service delivery in agriculture, health, education, transport, energy, public safety and the list goes on. When it works, all other sectors have a chance of succeeding; but when Public Finance Management fails all other sectors fail.

We as citizens of developing countries ought to be more concerned about who drives the agenda for Public Finance Management reform. Is it the IMF, as it imposes Public Finance Management Reform conditionalities that are not just tied to strengthening or improving budgetary systems, but are tied specifically to the adoption of particular reform approaches – despite such approaches having in some instances failed in more than one country. Is it the World Bank as it makes the adoption of integrated financial management information systems (IFMIS) the basis for support in reforming the Public Finance Management systems? Or is it the result of wide internal debate and consideration by the country citizenry influencing their elected leaders to address the basic things that they know do not work using approaches that are within the reach of our capacity rather than adopt reform methods that may not yet be appropriate to our circumstances?

This donor interest in improving Public Finance Management performance has led to immense pressure on countries to adopt new public management approaches. These have included (1) medium term expenditure frameworks (MTEF) often pushed to be implemented long before a country may have developed the capacity to make credible their annual budgets and even as developing partners themselves continue to struggle with their capability to disburse funds predictably in-year, more so as measured in a medium term perspective; or (2) the use of policy based budgeting such as program and activity based budgeting long before they have the institutional capacity to effectively coordinate programs, develop the fiscal space for meaningful policy consideration, or access the monitoring data to properly evaluate policy outcomes; or (3) the adoption of integrated financial management information systems (IFMIS) to manage expenditure which occurs across as many as thousands of spending units many of which still struggle with issues of staff retention, electricity supply or integration into a national financial administrative network. The challenges of managing at the level of spending units under an IFMIS implementation has led to a roll out strategy limited to treasuries (payment centres). Control over payments is often too late to impact on the accrual of expenditure arrears which can have important detrimental macroeconomic stability impacts; or (4) full accrual accounting even as financial reports based upon a cash accounting standard are not comprehensive, show signs of low data integrity and are issued late. A review of country experience across many developing countries who have adopted the new program management approaches in their Public Finance management reforms shows that these efforts have often not been successful by any reasonable measure.

The primary reason for this widespread Public Finance Management reform failure is often attributed to political economy considerations by developing partners – poor governance, high levels of corruption and the like. Of course that is part of the equation, but in contrast it is striking that there are cases of dramatic success of particular elements of Public Finance Management reform in such areas as debt management, certain aspects of revenue administration and public procurement in even what are considered the most corrupt developing countries. Is the political economy focus just another way of suggesting that the poor success record of many of these new public management approaches is solely the responsibility of the developing countries and has little to do with the immense influence that the donor community has had over in setting the Public Finance Management reform agenda?

Clearly, it is time to recognise that considerations of the different sides of the question as to what reform methods to adopt or whether Public Finance Management is, or should be, driven principally by the disbursement conditionalities set by donors; or arrived at through much wider debate and careful consideration by the citizenry and leadership of developing countries might lead to quite different conclusions. The consequence of wider discussion between developing country actors could lead to a more balanced, realistic, relevant and ultimately effective approach to Public Finance Management reform in developing countries.

copyright by idilmat ltd,

Stop Me If You’ve Heard This But Isn’t Business Credit Challenging and What’s Asset Based Finance?

It is always surprising to us that asset based lending is still probably less than 5% of Canadian business credit while in the U.S. it accounts for hundreds of billions of dollars of ongoing business financing.

However the trend is reversing and new transaction are being completed everyday in this asset financing category. Canadian businesses who need financing in excess of 250k (the upper limit is almost unlimited) can benefit from this relatively new Canadian business financing strategy.

Clients always have questions as to what the financing actually is and, more importantly, how it works and does their firm qualify.

ABL is simply A business loan secured by collateral (assets). The line of credit, is secured by inventory, accounts receivable and/or other balance-sheet assets, and is non bank in nature.

Let’s address the qualification issue first – the reality is that if your firm has business assets in receivables, inventory, equipment, and even real estate those assets can be monetized into a business line of credit that focuses on the asset, not the overall quality or condition of your balance sheet.

We are of course referring to Canadian chartered bank lines of credit that provide a similar and more often than not less expensive form of financing via revolving lines of credit. However most business owners know those facilities focus on balance sheet and income statement strength, ratios that must be met, and heavy emphasis on personal covenants and outside collateral. That is not asset based lending relative to what we are talking about!

Your asset based lending financing facility is secured by business assets. These facilities are typically available through private finance firms that are non-bank in nature. One of two of Canada’s banks offer this type of financing outside their normal business banking, but qualifications and deal size are still somewhat challenging to meet in our opinion.

When you negotiate an A B L facility (that’s the acronym the industry uses) you and the lender agree up front on the market value of your ongoing receivables, inventory, and unencumbered equipment. That collateral becomes the essence of your financing and drawdown capability.

So why is this all different from a bank? The answer is simply – banks have regulated formulaic methods of financing business – in fact many would agree that bank business credit got increasingly difficult to get since the 2008 worldwide debacle.

Finance firms offering asset based lending are not regulated in the same manner, do business in almost every industry in Canada, even those that are deemed ‘ out of favor ‘and the management of these firms typically have years of experience in lending against receivables, inventory (yes, inventory!), with the additional enhancement of allowing you to monetize your credit facility by including some borrowing against your equipment for ongoing working capital and cash flow.

Speak to a trusted, credible and experienced business financing advisor in this specialized area and find out how a new financing facility can put you head and shoulders above your competition in overall financing strategy.